The obligatory “gay bishop to deliver invocation at inaugural event” post
posted at 3:21 pm on January 12, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Supposedly he was booked long before l’affaire Warren roiled the nutroots and Team Barry simply forgot to mention it until now. Ahem.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay civil rights organization, said in a statement that the choice was “encouraging.”
“Bishop Robinson models what prayer should be — spiritual reflection put into action for justice,” Solmonese said. “It is encouraging that the president-elect has chosen this spiritual hero, and that should remain our focus today.”…
An Obama source said: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism — but it’s just not so.”
Also appearing at the event: Bono, Jamie Foxx, and Shakira, among others, although whether the biggest celebrity in the world will himself be making a cameo is as yet unclear.
David Brody thinks this might undo some of the goodwill Obama earned with Christian conservatives by tapping Warren for the inauguration. I’m skeptical.
If you line up ten Evangelicals on the street, my guess is that eight of them would say it doesn’t surprise them that Obama would choose an openly gay Bishop to deliver an invocation like this. But this cuts both ways to a degree. Obama took heat from the left on Warren and will no doubt take heat from the right on this pick. It’s a tough position for Obama to be in. He wants to reach out to all Americans but in the process he’s probably going to tick off a lot of people of faith. When you pick a controversial gay bishop that has been in the headlines for years and has come to symbolize gay rights (for some), it’s bound to get under the skin of conservative minded Evangelicals, many of whom may be ready to cut Obama some slack.
Exit question: 20 percent of evangelicals will be surprised to find a liberal Democrat endorsing a gay bishop? The reason picking Warren was shocking, I thought, was because they expected him to pick people like Robinson in the first place. Besides, no one in America believes The One’s sincerely against gay marriage. Why would this come as some sort of revelation?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
And that is what sin does to individuals. I know this is ridiculed by many today — people make comedy routines out of this information, ridicule it, laugh at it, etc. — but the point is, sin kills, sin destroys the human soul.
The Unpardonable Sin
30 “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
31 “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
READ THE WHOLE THING…
Matthew 12
Words Reveal Character
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
35 “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.
36 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
The Desire for Signs
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
42 “The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
43 “Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it.
44 “Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’; and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order.
45 “Then it goes and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation.”
The “house” “swept clean” and found “in order” Christ speaks about is the human soul if freed (”clean”) from sin (confessed of it, forgiven of it, changed from it to non-sinful state) (means no longer engaging in whatever sin was being engaged in, be it action or limited to “of the mind” as in thought and/or deed), Christ speaks of the cleaned house of a man (individual) free of sin, and without the helps of grace and faith in God, without continued reliance on God, on Christ, then, the house swept clean is again affronted by sin and if open to sin again, the house or soul will be occupied by more intense sin afterward.
That’s what that means, that sin can be expected to be recurring and that the SALVATION from sin is ongoing as to our human nature (behaviors, influences in this world, etc., we are tempted anew daily, in other words, to open the door to sin yet again).
Without ongoing commitment to avoid and deny sin, then, the sin returns in manifold nature. That’s where I’d place Richardson’s continued and fallen nature.
S on January 13, 2009 at 1:50 AM
And He also declares that we are not saved by works.
But that He will recognize those who do His work.
The two statements are not contradictory, however, when read in the context of what Christ says.
That our faith will be tested, that He distinguishes between those who anticipate doing good works versus those with faith who fulfill His work, go about doing as He has commanded (distinguishes between “love” as charity — that’s love in action — and merely doing deeds with anticipation that those deeds will earn points with God, which is what he chastised the Pharisees about, or at least part of what He criticized them about).
Work alone, or “doing good deeds” IF IT IS NOT DONE IN THE PRACTICE OF CHARITY, OR LOVE OF GOD (because one loves God not because one is afraid of what God will do or not do, but out of love for God, one’s work is then charitable, one’s person is charitable, one’s FAITH is charitable), then work alone or “doing deeds to earn points” won’t pass God’s judgement.
God wants our love, freely and fully, wants us to love Him and in doing so, to then do HIs work, our actions become God’s plan for us, in other words.
God doesn’t want people punching the clock of deeds like racking up points, which is not charity, it’s “mere work”. Not an fruit of a good tree, in other words, though goodly deeds are used by God to bring about good results.
I just think that the New Testament is overall such a work of beauty and truth that one attempts to argue with it at their own loss, certainly their own peril.
God’s a mystery but He really does come down from Heaven and seek out relationship with us, each of us.
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:01 AM
I think you are right.
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Which is, again, the affirmation by Paul there of Christ’s own statements and purpose, that He came into the world to save sinners and that He fulfills the laws and the prophets (accordingly).
We had the law, now we have the Savior. But the Savior, so the Savior Himself declared, FULFILLED THE LAW…
The law, then, is the Savior, Christ is the law, through Him salvation is available.
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:07 AM
Well said.
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:09 AM
Well, actually, you miss a significant point of who Christ is and what He declared in reference to the Old Testament (and what He did NOT renounce as to the Old Testament): he did NOT renounce the Old Testament and certainly not the Ten Commandments, for keen example.
If Christ wanted us to forget about it all, He’d have so declared. He didn’t. He says he fulfills the law…that means, if He doesn’t “cancel out” any one term or aspect, He’s fulfilling it, all of it.
He spoke out about what He, say, revised. Christ came to clarify in his statements and to conclude in His work, that which God has begun. The word, “fulfill” is very potent a statement.
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Not to monopolize, I have written enough for one evening.
Wishing all my fellow Christians here a nice night and a good morning tomorrow.
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:17 AM
He did not denounce what “THE LAW” (or Old Testament) says about homosexual behavior, NOR did Christ declare “it” to be acceptable. NOR did he affirm carnality, for starters, and many other behaviors that homosexuality can readily characterize and does.
What was Christ drawing in the sand with a stick while sitting listening to his Disciples?
You’re attempting to slip a set of behaviors under some moral door using a temptation affect of Holy Scripture and Christ as Holy, to rationalize sin.
Let’s see, New Testament…paraphrasing…wrong for one man to lie with another…wrong with women to do likewise with another…Old Testament: thou shalt not commit adultery…
If you really are interested in reading what the Bible (and Christ) have to say about “homosexuals,” get into some Bible studies with a non-homosexual instructor.
As long as you are looking for comfort for your acts in Christianity, you will be challenged about them. Because Christ did not utter the WORD, “homosexuality” or the word, “homosexuals,” did not mean He does not cast it aside as sin. BECAUSE God declares it so. Christ can no more deny what God declares than Christ is not of God. You mistake language for the presence of Christ in the Holy Trinity.
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:24 AM
REFER TO THIS, for one example among many…either one accepts the words of the disciples as testament or one does not. Romans, then, is Paul the disciple declaring as this:
Romans 1
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:49 AM
NOT DENOUNCED or “revised” in any way by Jesus Christ, NOT cast aside by Christ:
Leviticus 18
New American Standard Bible ©
Laws on Immoral Relations
1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am the LORD your God.
3 ‘You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.
4 ‘You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God.
5 ‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
6 ‘None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.
7 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.
8 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
9 ‘The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover.
10 ‘The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.
11 ‘The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
12 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s blood relative.
13 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative.
14 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt. 15 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.
17 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
18 ‘You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.
19 ‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.
20 ‘You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.
21 ‘You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
23 ‘Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24 ‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
25 ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
26 ‘But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you
27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);
28 so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.
29 ‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.
30 ‘Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.’”
S on January 13, 2009 at 2:58 AM
In New Testament terms, then, there exists a parable between the “land of Egypt” (where God’s people once lived) with a state of sin — being taken into the new land is a continuation, then, of this parable as one is taken into salvation by the Word of God (Christ become man among us, the living Word of God) and become anew, or, become a new land, free of sin, in relationship with God and God the Holy Trinity.
God says that new land is defiled when these acts/sins are committed, so, not to do these acts (Leviticus 18) and to then remain in “the new land.”
Also a physical story about Egypt and Canaan, but referred to later when Christ was with us as I just wrote above. Christ uses much of the Old Testament to show or reveal to us what and who He is.
S on January 13, 2009 at 3:02 AM
This seems quite bizarre. Either you have not transgressed the law and in that case law has no claim upon you, or you have transgressed and the law condemns you. The condemnation of the law is exactly the thing from which bad people need to be saved, so to claim that the law saves a person is very odd indeed.
Also the law is exactly what it is, a list of do’s and don’ts. The law is not Jesus; Jesus is not a (or the) law.
The Mosaic law was part of the covenant between God and the Israeilites. A covenant is a form of contract. The law, then, was part of the terms of that contract.
Fulfil and abolish (or cancel if you prefer) are legal terms pertaining to contracts. Fulfilling a contract and canceling a contract are two different ways to end a contract.
If a contract is cancelled/abolished then the deal is not completed.
If a contract is fulfilled then all parties to the contract have satisfied all of their obligations to one another. All that needed to be done, has been done.
The terms of a fulfilled contract are effectively dead; finished, irrelevent.
Thus, for those who live in Christ, the Israelite law is of no significance. Those who are in Christ are outside the jurisdiction of that law, they cannot be answerable to it nor judged by it.
Words like covenent, abolish and fulfill are just bog-standard law-of-contract terminology that has been understood for millenia.
I think that in order to understand what Jesus meant by his words, and to understand what he accomplished by his deeds, and to understand its significance for us, it is necessary to first grasp this basic contractual nature of the matter.
Here is a long explanation on another website.
YiZhangZhe on January 13, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Obamanation Abomination
Born that way? They need to be BORN AGAIN
Turn or burn, get right or get left–it’s all very clear.
……and you KNOW it—you just don’t LIKE it.
Nature itself makes it clear, common sense clarifies it……you have to try hard to be dumb enough on purpose to see it any other way.
John The Baptist on January 13, 2009 at 7:49 AM
Short answer/post 2009 is the only inaugural where Warren would be controversial and Robinson would not.
Long thought here. Only Obama could find a bishop afraid to use the bible in prayer.
petertheslow on January 13, 2009 at 8:18 AM
I’m not surprised Obama picked a gay bishop to pray for him – I expected as much.
It doesnt change my perception of Obama and the democrat party either.
The fact that he picked Warren to pray does not get me on Obama’s side.
abcurtis on January 13, 2009 at 8:30 AM
He said adultery and fornication were wrong – can homosexuals commit adultery and fornication? Bishop Vickey Gene did.
And it depends on who you say Jesus is. If you say he is God, then the Mosaic Law calling homosexuality an abomination came from him.
If you say he taught Paul as Paul said he did, the he plainly said homosexuality is a sin.
I’m done.
abcurtis on January 13, 2009 at 8:33 AM
YiZhangZhe on January 13, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Wow, so fulfilling a contract is another way to destroy a contract?
Good job twisting Scripture with this “understanding of contemporary law” stuff. Really.
That almost had me convinced.
http://yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat6b.htm
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 8:58 AM
all I see are a bunch of RACISTS for daring to question the choice of the ONE!!!
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Alabama NAACP criticizes use of Trail Maids in Inaugural Parade
….is the NAACP racist? Who wudda thunk it?
Now it’s the womens clothes that remind the NAACP of slavery. I think they are doing themselves and all black men and women a disservice when they protest every aspect of southern life.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Going from religious beliefs to chopping people’s heads off? Sorry bro, YOU are the true bigot for invoking this over-arching “fundamentalism” argument and acting like Christians who take the Bible seriously let alone literally are akin to Muslims flying planes into buildings. Now that I think of it, you sound a bit like Rosie O’Donnell.
Just remember, those boogeymen of yours have started and maintained more soup kitchens; homeless shelters; charitable giving programs; hospitals; schools; community centers and the like than anyone else in history.
This kind of conversation that we’ve been having here is the reason that I steer far away from words such as “intolerant” or “ignorant.” They’ve become pet words with little meaning other than to shame people who have a differing opinion and shut them up – regardless of whether or not the criticism is true, and sometimes it serves as an excellent example of projection. Almost like the word “racist,” don’t you think?
So, and this is something everyone here would do well to practice themselves – ask yourself before indiscriminately throwing around insults “Do I protest too much?”
Thank you. I’m done. Next please.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Ha ha I just posted on the NAACP. You are a visionary.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Racist? But wait! You forgot the – all 342,346,980,891,568,592,904 of them – words ending in “-phobe”
such as “Episcophobe”
“seniorphobe”
“bishopphobe”
Far more interesting and creative than simply calling someone a racist, IMO.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM
you are obviously a racistsexistbigotedhomophobe!!
I put the homophobe at the end just for you!! ;-)
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 9:44 AM
But where does Christ tell us that the parts of the OT relating to civil and ceremonial law don’t need to be followed but other parts do? Where is the delineation?
Paul seems clear on it, but he was bringing the gospel to gentiles and needed to make clear that they didn’t have to become Jewish in order to be Christian–especially the circumcision part.
dedalus on January 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Mark 7:18-19″Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)
Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat (offering), or in drink (offering), or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:”
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM
The fulfilling of the Law by Christ is this. God, during Old Testament times required the sacrificing of animals on the altar to purge those doing the sacrificing of their sins so they could stand before Him. Because “life” is in the blood, the shedding of blood(the old life)is drained and the new replaces it. It was entirely symbolic and an ongoing process because everyone sins. Therefore He promised a Savior, His Son, to take the place of that animal sacrifice. Accepting Christ as our Savior, because He shed His blood for us, God the Father now sees us through the shed blood of His Son, making those former sacrifices obsolete. The only part of the old law that is no longer relevant is the animal sacrifice.
Sins are still sins, whether they are listed in the New Testament or not. That sin still requires the shedding of the old life’s sins(the blood)in order to be in the presence of God. That requirement is now fulfilled through the shedding of the Son’s blood for us.
The sin of homosexuality may not be mentioned by name in the New Testament, but it is still sin, as mentioned in the Old. The Old Testament is the road map set forth by God for living a healthy, productive life. The New Testament is a road map for the soul, thus making us whole in mind and body.
It’s always amazed me when I read the Old Testament, the wisdom provided there for everyday life. Proverbs is a jewel, describing a hangover, a harpy wife, the hazards of drunkenness etc. There is practical advice for relationships with friends and family, doing business, borrowing money, suing or not suing someone, cleanliness and personal safety. All are relevant today and will be tomorrow. All lead to a more fulfilling life experience whether you believe in God or not.
So, the Old Testament is not dead, just fulfilled through Christ. Sin is sin, no matter where you find it in the Bible.
hopefloats on January 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM
hopefloats on January 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 mentions homosexuality. Just thought you would want to know.
kingsjester on January 13, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Thanks. That’s clear.
dedalus on January 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM
The Pharisees were keeping the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. They focused on their phylacteries and altar gifts rather devotion to God. They enforced the law of the Torah and expanded on it from oral tradition, which was eventual written down in the Mishnah (a very detailed legalistic collection). Much of the written and oral Jewish law was not brought into Christianity.
dedalus on January 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Which proves what? Neither the law nor devotion to God have anything to do with wanting to get the best seat in the house, best rags, or recognition/popularity.
The New Testament was already fully written by the time the Mishnah had been completed (which was 20x AD.) Judaism and Christianity had already split from each other.
So again, this proves nothing.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM
In the case of the Mishnah are you contending that there was no law until it was written down? The writing of the Mishnah didn’t create the law, it preserved it after the destruction of the Temple.
Christians don’t follow much of the Torah. That has been my contention. The proof is in the NT and in the way Christians live their lives.
dedalus on January 13, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Ryan, I never once equivocated modern fundamentalist Christians with Islamic terrorists…you made that jump. However, we don’t have to rehash some of the things that have been done in the name of Christianity throughout history, do we? Also, there is no doubt that Christian churches perform many admirable charitable acts around the world. I’m not denying that. However, all of these acts can be done (and in fact are done) by secular organizations…religion is not a necessary component.
Finally, if you make value judgments on individuals based solely on their sexual orientation (for religious reasons or otherwise), you are a bigot…by definition. Sorry, it’s just that simple. No amount of pounding your chest is going to change that.
Danger, thanks for the rational and courteous post. I disagree with you, but respect where you’re coming from.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
where was the atheist wilberforce? and atheist abolitionist societies? werne’t there
isn’t pedophilia just a sexual orientation? a ‘lifstyle choice’ and who are we to judge??
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM
You help make my point 4life. BTW, I’m not really referring to “atheist” charitable organizations, but rather secular ones. In other words, charitable organizations which exist solely to perform humanitarian functions without any religious (or other) agenda. I think you must know that there are many more of these types of organizations than there are religious ones. Google “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”. I believe they’ve provided more humanitarian aid than any private group in history.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Oh, one more thing 4life, playing the “pedophilla” card is extremely lame and a very predictable fundamentalist tactic. You can do better than that.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM
HOPEFLOATS gets the meaning of the Old Testament to modern Christians correct. I usually read the Old Testament lessons at church–most of them are still germane to modern people.
***
God gave people good rules for our health and happiness–his wisdom is a lot better than ours. My older son–a doctor–re-read Proverbs again and commented on what good advice for living is there.
***
Some Old Testament rules changed when Jesus came to this earth and saved us–food rules, sacrifice rules, etc. Other rules never changed–they still apply to us.
***
About 80 percent of the Bible is Old Testament–20 percent is New Testament. Throwing out the Old Testament would rob us of a lot of knowledge of God and his love and plans for us.
***
John Bibb
rocketman on January 13, 2009 at 12:48 PM
oh like the ford or rockefeller foundation? how naive are you?? oh yeah you’re a lib, nevermind…
uh yeah right…its very true. NAMBLA anyone? since you can’t name a secular abolitionist society, name the straight equivalent of NAMBLA. you can’t.
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I’m sure people like you think planned parenthood is one of those ‘wonderful’ secular charities…just there to help the poor women…
and whats funny is that people like you dakine, are bigots against christians, especially the dreaded fundamentalist christians.
so when you throw words like that around, check the mirror…
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 1:28 PM
life, you really are speaking out of your ass…typical fundamentalist loon. I base my opinions on people based on whether they are decent or not. Race, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, not so much. Do you really want me to name a heterosexual organization with perverted sexual purposes? There are hundreds of them. You’re a bigot. Now just admit it and don’t hide behind your religious dogma and I’ll have a modicum of respect for you.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM
looks like the truth hurts!!
gee another liberal twisting what I said, because you can’t answer the point about NAMBLA. what a surprise!!
I’m glad to know you’re not bigoted against pedophiles, just christians!
I wouldn’t want your respect…its rather obvious who the ass is…
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 2:14 PM
right4life said:
“Mark 7:18-19 ″Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)”
This ia a HORRIBLE MISTRANSLATION of the text at the end. Here is what an accurate translation of Mark 7:19 says. Jesus Christ did not “declare all foods clean” as this horrific Catholic translation claims.
(NKJV) Mark 7:19 “because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?”
See the difference? That is what the text ACTUALLY says when translated from Greek. The heretical Catholics and their translation INSERT THE WORDS “in saying this, Jesus decalred” at the end of it.
Catholics cannot ever be trusted when translating the bible in my experience and this is one good example why.
ALSO, Jesus Christ never ever said that it was OK to eat unclean foods during His earthly ministry. He consistently said during His earthly ministry that all Jews who follow Him must obey even the least commands of the law (Matthew 5:17-20; Matthew 23:23) and this includes the dietary laws.
AND when Jesus Christ was telling Peter that He had cut off Israel and was now starting something new with the Body of Christ in Acts 10 where Gentiles could be saved without keeping the law Jesus used the unclean animals and commanded Peter to eat them as a way of communicating this truth that keeping the Mosaic law had been dropped as a requirement for salvation (Paul mentioned it later in Eph 2).
TheMightyQuinn on January 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM
dedalus said:
This is false. You are mangling something that Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3 which Abraham Lincoln originally mangled and others have mangled since then.
The letter IS the law. The Spirit is the Lord. That is what 2 Corinthians 3:6 says. There is no “spirit of the law” that you can get from anywhere in the bible.
2 Corinthians 3:5-9 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as [being] from ourselves, but our sufficiency [is] from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written [and] engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which [glory] was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation [had] glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.
See that? The “letter” is the law. The letter kills. The ministry of death written and engraved on stones [THE TEN COMMANDMENTS] is the law. Its the ministry of condemnation.
The letter is the law and the Spirit is the Lord. They even capitalized Spirit in the NKJV to help show that Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit here.
There is no “spirit of the law” mentioned in the bible.
TheMightyQuinn on January 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I was using “spirit of the law” in an informal manner–not with reference to a Bible verse. Certainly much of the law in the OT was never followed by Christian churches. Paul was the most influential proponent of this.
In Galatians he says: “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”
In faith there are moral laws we should naturally follow, but Paul is putting faith above the Jewish laws as he endeavored to bring Christ to non-Jews.
dedalus on January 13, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Look tool (that would be you life). First, pedophile’s are not “decent”, so them not so much. Second, I’m not a liberal…far from it in fact. One more time: you do not like gay people simply because they are in fact gay. That, by definition, makes you a bigot. Why is that so difficult for you to admit. The fact that you claim your religious beliefs demand said bigotry is of no consequence, other than to highlight your cowardice.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 4:24 PM
that makes you a liar. no surprise there again. you really are predictable.
by definition you’re an idiot, but then thats rather obvious.
right4life on January 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM
You lack originality in your insults life…try again. You also appear not to be much of a Christian.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Oh yes, you did. Wanna see where?
Don’t play around with me. That was a reply to my statement @ 12:45. In it, you said “religious fundamentalism” – of all types, which doesn’t differ between Christian, Muslim, etc. So, in effect, you did compare the two.
I really wish you’d get this part, if nothing else in my reply . . . Individual =/= individual’s actions.
And from whom have those organizations taken their example? What is responsible for the modern sense of right and wrong in America? Hint: not secular organizations, nor Jewish organizations, nor Muslim organizations.
Care to back that up?
Put the word “combined” in though, and I guarantee you it won’t come close. Even after you factor in those sources of aid which aren’t specifically groups, foundations or churches (i.e. private citizens.)
You’re not helping the cause with statements like that. Might wanna step away from your keyboard next time you feel something like that coming on.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 7:54 PM
One more time: you do not like gay people simply because they are in fact gay. That, by definition, makes you a bigot
Dakine,
It is the sinful actions people commit that a Christian opposes not the person. The Bible instructs us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of the lord. The sin; weather it be homosexual sex, adultery, stealing or any other type lead to eternal death and only the Grace provided by Christs sacrifice will allow us to be spared from that punishment.
It is sin that is the Truck heading toward us I spoke of earlier. Christ came to jump in front of the Truck for us and all we have to do is stand behind him.
Now you might ask would an unrepentant gay male who lives an otherwise unblemished life be eligible for this Grace.
I think the answer would be no. It is the unrepentant part that is disqualifying. This person is not standing behind Christ, he is running out into traffic. However that choice does not give me license to sit in judgement of his soul that is God’s role. My role is to warn him about the Truck.
Danger on January 13, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Or another way of looking at it would be to ask you if you dislike thieves and murderers. If you do are you a Bigot?
Danger on January 13, 2009 at 9:04 PM
You might not like the comparison but the bible teaches us a sin is a sin.
Danger on January 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM
why don’t you take a flying leap?
right4life on January 14, 2009 at 10:23 AM
you are not much of an intellect.
right4life on January 14, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3